alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

162) IV-C-129 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:00 AM Sheet 162 of 232 
P.2 

9A \ W • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

• r- C.CQ 1QP<* OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. James E. Pasek 

General Motors Corporation 

General Motors Technical Center 

30400 Mound Road 

Warren, MI 48090-9015 

Dear Mr. Pasek: 

This letter is a follow-up to our recent phone 

conversations concerning General Motors' onboard hardware 

evaluation testing. In those phone conversations, I requested 

a briefing on your evaluation of EPA's simplified 

hardware concept. While we are willing to meet with you 

September 16, 1988, I must reiterate our desire to get 

detailed, technical briefing which provides EPA a basis 

analyze and critique the test program results you presented 

Acting Assistant Administrator Don Clay on August 16, 1988. 

onboard 

on 

a 

to 

to 

We need to understand the test procedures and view the 

hard data from your test program. Furthermore, we feel it is 

necessary to see the hardware that you evaluated. The briefing 

content I am requesting will facilitate our understanding of 

your evaluation efforts and is similar in nature to that which 

we provided to GM and other MVMA member companies on April 13, 

1988. 

If you have any questions concerning this request, call me 

at 313/668-4338. 

Sincerely yours, 

Chester J. France, Chief 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

cc: Richard Wilson, EPA 

Charles Gray, EPA 

Samuel Leonard, GM 

Docket A-85-21 / 

Docket A-87-11 \/ 
P.3 

° V& mo** 

^o* ^
WHITE v. RED LOBSTER . 

CIV. S- 04-0620 WBS KJM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MARTIN H. ORLICK 

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MARMARO, LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attorney for Defendant 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHERIE WHITE 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GMRI INC. DBA RED LOBSTER #555; 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CIV. S- 04-0620 WBS KJM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S 

REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S 

OPPOSITION 

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE 

CHICO, CA. 95926 

(530) 895-3252 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00620-WBS -CMK Document 35 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 2
WHITE v. RED LOBSTER . 

CIV. S- 04-0620 WBS KJM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Whereas Plaintiff’s counsel has been unavailable for the last week attending court 

order conferences in the Southern and Central District and therefore has not had an 

opportunity to prepare Plaintiff’s reply brief; 

Whereas the last day for Plaintiff’s counsel to respond to Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Monday, August 29, 2005. 

The parties in the above reference matter hereby agree that Plaintiff’s Reply to 

Defendant’s Opposition is due on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. 

So Stipulated:

Dated: August 26, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

 /s/ LYNN HUBBARD 

 Lynn Hubbard, III 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: August 26, 2005 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & 

MARMARO, LLP

Signature on File 

Martin Orlick 

Attorney for Defendant 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated: August 30, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-00620-WBS -CMK Document 35 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

April 10, 1958

No. 61811.

#### W. R. Zanes & Company *v.*United States,

protest 214695-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 64800.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33599 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 74, C.D. 2106), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 49564.

#### Protest 104722-K/12604 of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Schmidt*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 188, C. D. 690) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
21.05
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2019 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2018-08	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII CER - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 7/12/18
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS In connection with the Annual Report of Corus Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Glickman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Corus
Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Corus Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. March 10, 2005
    
    /s/ Robert J. GlickmanRobert J. GlickmanChief Executive Officer
 In connection with the Annual Report of Corus Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Tim H. Taylor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Corus
Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Corus Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. March 10, 2005
    
    /s/
Tim H. TaylorTim H. TaylorChief Financial Officer
# attribtable--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2022-16 	&"Arial,Bold"&9Draft	&"Arial,Bold"&10August 2022 IRC Meeting Handout
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case Nos. 6D2023-1592, 6D2023-2412

CONSOLIDATED

Lower Tribunal No. 2019-CA-000926-O

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER LANGDON,

Appellant,

v.

SUN LAKE MULTI FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC, ALLISON MURRELL, GREYSTAR 

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, STATE OF FLORIDA, EVELYN CAMACHO, ROBERT FAITH,

SHAWNA POLLACK, and ANGELA WHITT,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Vincent Falcone, III, Judge.

July 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Langdon appeals an order dismissing with prejudice counts 1 

through 6 in his Fourth Amended Complaint against Defendants Sun Lake Multi 

Family Holdings, LLC, Greystar Property Management, Shawna Pollack, Angela 

Whitt, and Allison Murrell.

1

 As Langdon’s notice of appeal was not filed within 30 

days after rendition of the order to be reviewed, this court lacks jurisdiction to 

1 This case was transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this 

Court on January 1, 2023.
2

consider the merits of his appeal. See Pennywell v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. 

Woodard, 62 So. 3d 19, 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“The filing deadline is 

jurisdictional, and the untimely filing of a notice of appeal precludes the court from 

exercising jurisdiction over the appeal.”). Accordingly, Langdon’s appeal of the 

order dismissing with prejudice counts 1 through 6 in his Fourth Amended 

Complaint is dismissed. 

There is, however, a separate order on an ancillary issue properly before this 

Court. Langdon timely filed a notice of appeal asking this Court to review an order 

awarding $37,678.25 in attorney fees and $331.92 in costs to Defendants Sun Lake 

Multi Family Holdings, LLC, Greystar Property Management, and Allison Murrell. 

Upon our review of this order, the parties’ briefs, and the record on appeal, we affirm 

the trial court’s award.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Christopher Langdon, Winter Park, pro se.

Barry B. Johnson, of Miller Johnson Law, P.L., Altamonte Springs, for Appellee, 

Sun Lake Multi Family Holdings, LLC.

No Appearance for Appellees, Allison Murrell, Greystar Property Management, 

State of Florida, Evelyn Camacho, Robert Faith, Shawna Pollack, and Angela Whitt.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
# sec5_sbr_2022

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BSeptember 2022
Exhibit  99.1



                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

         (As adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


     For  the  Annual Report of Life Partners Holdings, Inc.  (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for  the  period  ending  February  28,  2003  (the "Report"), the
undersigned  Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby  certify  that:

          (i)  the  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and

          (ii)  the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of
                operations of  the Company as of and for the periods covered  in
                the  Report.

     Dated:  May  29,  2003

                                    /s/  Brian  D.  Pardo
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Chief  Executive  Officer


                                    /s/  Nina  Piper
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Chief  Financial  Officer

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Life  Partners  Holdings,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained by it and
furnished  to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

[This  Section  906  certification accompanies the Report, but is not "filed" as
part  of  the  Report.]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES H. CARR, No. 2:04-cv-0584-MCE-JFM-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

TOM CAREY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

On March 6, 2006, Respondent filed a Request for

Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order filed February

15, 2006, denying without prejudice respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss. On March 9, 2006, Petitioner filed a Response to

Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration.

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s

orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.” Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it

does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.

Case 2:04-cv-00584-MCE -JFM Document 48 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration,

the Order of the magistrate judge filed February 15, 2006, is

affirmed. 

DATED: April 20, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00584-MCE -JFM Document 48 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,003,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,313,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,837,926
<PP&E>                                      87,105,266
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,853,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             160,619,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,571,498
<BONDS>                                    100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (25,951,687)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               160,619,811
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,314,211
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,116,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,471,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,730,255)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,730,255)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

No Name Description Rule Attribute Combination

51E

Backdated Transaction and Prior Year Adjustment

If a transaction has been backdated to a previous fiscal year in CARS, then the Prior Year Adjustment for the transaction is B. The Backdated Transaction field on the SMAF will be Y (yes) if a backdated transaction has been processed. Fail

PRIOR YEAR 

ADJUSTMENT CODE

CONCATENATED 

TAS

Backdated 

Transaction

Pass B 075 X3966000 N

122 Abnormal Balance Validation

Reporting abnormal balances for some USSGL accounts is restricted to TAS approved by OMB in the GTAS Override Request Exercise. For more information see the Abnormal Budgetary USSGL Account Balances Dashboard (https://go.max.gov/abnormalbalances). Fail

USSGL ACCOUNT 

NUMBER

DEBIT CREDIT 

INDICATOR

PRIOR YEAR 

ADJUSTMENT CODE 

=413900 =C =(BLANK)

=470000 =D =(BLANK)

Data Validations - Detail

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Bulletin No. 2024-01 DRAFT VII VDR - 1
# sf133_schp--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout February 15, 2023
Part 1 DRAFT Fiscal Year 2024 Reporting 

SUPPLEMENT Section VII 

U.S. Standard General Ledger 

Closing Edits Detail Report 

Bulletin No. 2024-01 DRAFT VII CER - 1 IRC Handout 11/29/23

Closing Rule Number: 21.420100 

Closing USSGL Account: 420100 Total Actual Resources - Collected 

Calculated Preclosing Balance 420100 Beginning Balance 

USSGL Account 

Number Begin/End Indicator Authority Type Code 

USSGL Account 

Number Begin/End Indicator 

417500 E D/P/S
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RUFFING : CIVIL ACTION

:

 :

 v. :

:

 : 

KALMAR INDUSTRIES : NO. 02-4422

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2002, in accordance with the court's

procedure for random reassignment of cases, it is hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is reassigned from the calendar of

the Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman to the calendar of the Honorable Timothy J. Savage.

 FOR THE COURT:

 JAMES T. GILES 

 Chief Judge

 ATTEST:

 ___________________

 MICHAEL E. KUNZ

 Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04422-TJS Document 3 Filed 09/06/2002 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, No. CIV.S-04-0675 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

MICHAEL FRANKLIN,

Defendant.

______________________________/

By order filed April 29, 2005, the district judge assigned

to this case dismissed this action based on the settlement agreement

reached between the parties following a settlement conference before

the undersigned magistrate judge. That order indicated that the

court, and the undersigned in particular, would retain jurisdiction

to enforce the terms of that settlement agreement.

On November 9, 2005, plaintiff filed notice that, according

to plaintiff, defendant has not satisfied his obligations under the

settlement agreement. Plaintiff therefore requests a status

conference. Plaintiff’s request will be granted in part. Rather

Case 2:04-cv-00675-WBS-DAD Document 31 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

than a status conference the court will issue an order to show cause

why the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement should not be

enforced.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. An order to show cause hearing is SET before the

undersigned on December 2, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 27;

2. All parties shall appear personally, or through counsel

if represented by an attorney, at the hearing; and

2. Within three court days of the hearing each party shall

file a written report addressing the status of the satisfaction of

the settlement agreement.

DATED: November 14, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.civil\tahoe0675.status

Case 2:04-cv-00675-WBS-DAD Document 31 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00347-CV 

IN RE DERICK DUNCAN RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 0713718D 0402719D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Tarrant County District Clerk 

Tom Wilder to transmit copies of Relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus, 

any answers filed, the convicting court’s finding, and any related filings to the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in accordance with article 11.07 of the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(c) 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

(West 2015). The intermediate courts of appeals have no authority to issue a 

writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless the clerk is interfering with the 

court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004) (providing 

that intermediate courts of appeals may only issue writs of mandamus against 

district and county judges or as necessary to enforce their jurisdiction); In re

Brooks, No. 02-11-00192-CV, 2011 WL 2436751, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

June 15, 2011, orig. proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeals do not 

have jurisdiction over matters related to article 11.07 applications for writs of 

habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5; In re 

McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. 

proceeding) (“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only 

courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.”). 

As Relator does not raise a complaint that the district clerk is interfering 

with this court’s jurisdiction, we dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus for lack 

of jurisdiction. See In re Guajardo, No. 03-11-00821-CV, 2012 WL 254675, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 25, 2012, orig. proceeding) (dismissing relator’s petition 

for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction when relator sought to compel district 

clerk to transmit habeas application and related filings to Court of Criminal 

Appeals); In re Brooks, 2011 WL 2436751, at *1 (same).

Because we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction, we likewise dismiss his motion concerning Rule 2 of the Texas Rules 
3

of Appellate Procedure and his motion concerning the appointment of appellate 

counsel.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, GARDNER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 12, 2015
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.1
------------
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Finity Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10 -QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I John A.
Courter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

*1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

*2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                               /s/John A. Courter
                               ------------------
                                 John A. Courter

*The foregoing certification relates to a registrant which has ceased operations
and has assets as of September 30, 2002 consisting solely of cash in the amount
of $7,546. Accordingly, the registrant has no disclosure controls and procedures
or internal controls and procedures with respect to which conclusions about, or
an evaluation of, effectiveness or significant changes thereof can be disclosed
as required by Item 307of Regulation S-B.










                                       10